Obamacare little more than thinly disguised Social Engineering

If you have a moment and this sort of thing interests you, check out George Neumayr's latest offering which pulls no punches in describing the disasterous notion of Obamacare. Here's a snippet...

"On one level, Obama is nothing more than a glib and empty pol, who careens from focus group to pollster. But on another level, buried deep within his cold and rootless personality, he is a man of perverse tenacity, a convinced socialist and secularist who was trained long ago to run the ball into the end zone for radicalism...

Such a deluded Democratic president was bound to overreach disastrously. Obamacare is a "big f -- king deal," Joe Biden whispered into his ear. And it is -- an unconstitutional coup disguised as altruistic legislation that was rammed through Congress by reckless partisan hacks who hadn't even read it.

But the central planners and social engineers from Planned Parenthood had pored over the bill carefully. The passage of the legislation left them giddy with excitement, as they knew its unread provisions would soon turn into nooses for their religious enemies on the right."

Three cheers for Neumayr for calling out Obama and his mind-numbed minions on this deliberate coup on the constitution and the American people.

Mr 'Inevitable' has now lost 5 of 8 states

I just thought this was interesting. From Jeffrey Anderson over at The Weekly Standard we read...

"When Mitt Romney won the Florida primary last Tuesday by 14 percentage points, how many people in America imagined that when Colorado, Missouri, and Minnesota were contested just seven days later, he would fail to win in any of them? But it wasn’t just that Romney lost. In Minnesota and Missouri, Romney failed to get even half as many votes as the winner, Rick Santorum. In Minnesota, Romney also finished 10 points behind the second-place finisher, Ron Paul (with 5 percent of precincts still outstanding). Santorum beat Romney by lopsided tallies of 55 to 25 percent in Missouri and 45 to 17 percent in Minnesota. Moreover, he beat Romney by 5 points (40 to 35 percent) in Colorado, where Romney won by 42 points (60 to 18 percent) over John McCain the last time around.

In all, the “inevitable” nominee has now lost in 5 of 8 states.

Santorum’s 30-point margin of victory in Missouri was the largest margin posted by any GOP candidate so far this year. True, no delegates were awarded as a result of that vote, but a quarter of a million Missourians still showed up and made their opinions known (more than anywhere else except for Florida and South Carolina).

What’s more, of the five largest states that have held votes so far this year (in order, Florida, Missouri, Minnesota, Colorado, and South Carolina), Romney has won by 14 points, lost by 30 points, lost by 28 points, lost by 5 points, and lost by 12 points."

This race is just starting to heat up and we have a long way to go. For the first time in decades, the later states in the primary process might actually get to decide matters. I thought the following information from PJ Media was interesting though...

"•The NBC-Marist poll taken right before the Florida primary showed Romney leading Gingrich by fifteen points. They asked how voters would vote in a straight Romney-Gingrich race. In a two-man race, Romney’s lead became sixteen points.


•Public Polling polled Missouri voters and found in a four-way caucus race, Gingrich led 30% to 28% for Santorum and 24% for Romney. In a two-way Gingrich-Romney race, Gingrich held a scant 43-42% lead, while in a Santorum-Romney race, Santorum led 50-37%.


•In Ohio, PPP found a similar phenomenon. Gingrich led Romney and Santorum 26-25-22%


. In a two-man race, Gingrich only led Romney by a 42-39% margin, while Santorum would lead Romney 45-38%.


•While not a scientific poll, the blog Hot Air’s reader survey gave a picture of how supporters of each candidate would react to different scenarios. Gingrich held a 45-33% lead over Romney in the most recent site survey with Santorum drawing 22% of the vote. If participants were restricted to Gingrich and Romney, the margin for Gingrich would be 57-43%, but in a two-man race, Santorum beats Romney 61-39%.

All four polls illustrate the point that Santorum voters aren’t all going to break for Gingrich, and three of the examples suggest that Santorum would do a better job of picking up Gingrich supporters than vice versa. Is this polling noise or is there a reason for this trend?"

Piper: Why was it right for God to slaughter women and children in the Old Testament?

In John Piper's recent article, he gives us his take on one of the more popular objections raised by skeptics concerning the claimed holiness of God...

"Was it right for God to slaughter women and children in the Old Testament? How can that ever be right?

It's right for God to slaughter women and children anytime he pleases. God gives life and he takes life. Everybody who dies, dies because God wills that they die.

God is taking life every day. He will take 50,000 lives today. Life is in God's hand. God decides when your last heartbeat will be, and whether it ends through cancer or a bullet wound. God governs.

So God is God! He rules and governs everything. And everything he does is just and right and good. God owes us nothing.

If I were to drop dead right now, or a suicide bomber downstairs were to blow this building up and I were blown into smithereens, God would have done me no wrong. He does no wrong to anybody when he takes their life, whether at 2 weeks or at age 92."

The response by Piper reminded me of something Brother Gregg once stated during our respective criticisms of the intellectual embarrassment cowardice of Dr. Richard Dawkins refusing to debate Dr William Lane Craig...

"In attempting to comment or characterize actions of God we must start with the character of God. The first question that we must ask ourselves, does God have right to make such a command? The answer is yes. Why? God is absolutely sovereign. God, as both revealed in the Scripture and defined by His character or nature has the right to exercise His absolute supremacy in accordance with His divine perfections. God is infinitely elevated above the highest creature. He is the most high and is subject to no one. God is independent and does as He pleases, only as He pleases, and always as He pleases."

While I agree with the idea that God is above reproach here, I would like to contrast Piper's view that God is intimately involved in the finer details of such affairs by actually "taking life" with a theory advanced by author Vox Day in which he mentions his view on the matter. The belief that Piper appears to hold to is referred to as "omniderigence" by Day...

"I certainly did not invent the concept(omniderigence), I merely constructed the word to describe it. It is a word I considered to be required for describing the logical and theological fallacy of those who interpret omniscience + omnipotence to equal X, X being the singular source of will and action in the universe.

It summarizes the popular idea of God as a detail-oriented puppet master and Man being without free will, merely playing out his assigned role in God's grand master Plan. This notion of an encyclopedic Plan reduces every being, great and small, to insignificant sock puppets in God's grand self-amusement, a concept which strikes me as not only psychologically nonsensical but bordering on the unbearably silly.

Despite its popularity, omniderigence is, in my opinion, a demonstrably anti-Biblical concept. The fact that God knows the number of hairs on a head or when a sparrow dies does not necessarily require Him to personally pluck them out one-by-one, or strike down the sparrow on the oak tree instead of the one on the birch."

I would only add one final thought. A certain apologist (I don't recall right now exactly which one) once stated that God, assuming He exists, is a very different creature than us human beings. And since He is quite different, and eternal, then it follows that maybe He has a much different view of death than we fallible humans do in this plane of existance. We seem to be caught up in the here and now and often view events from the standpoint of this temporary existance. What if God is going to make everything allright for a particular person and 'dry every tear' 500 years from now? Or a thousand? Just thought I'd throw that out there for discussion. Feel free to leave your thoughts below.

Obama muzzles Catholic chaplains

As Obama's poll numbers plummet, it seems that in the waning days of his soon to be one-term presidency that there is a greater urgency to implement his ideals for a leftist utopia. Why worry about violating Freedom of Religion and Free Speech rights when you have a shot at remaking society?

"The Obama administration has been accused of telling Catholic military chaplains what they can and cannot say from their pulpits after the Army ordered Catholic chaplains not to read a letter to parishioners from their archbishop.

The Secretary of the Army feared the letter could be viewed as a call for civil disobedience.

The letter called on Catholics to resist the policy the Obama Administration’s policy that would force institutions affiliated with religious groups to provide coverage for birth control, sterilization and “abortifacients.” The Catholic Church believes the mandate represents an unconstitutional violation of freedom of religion.

Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum told Fox News Sunday the Army violated its chaplains’ constitutional rights by barring them from reading the letter – calling for resistance to the contraceptive coverage mandate.

“The Army and the Obama administration said they couldn’t even issue the letter to complain about the Obama administration’s plan on this policy,” Santorum said, calling it a violation of freedom of religion and freedom of speech.

“This is the problem when government tells you they can give you things,” said Santorum, a Catholic. “They can take it away but even worse they can tell you how they are going to exercise this new right consistent with their values instead of the values guaranteed in the Constitution.”

For a better idea of what of Archbishop Broglio's letter contained, just click here. The increasingly authoritarian stance of this administration imposing it's will on Americans is troubling and its no wonder that Americans fear the reelection of Obama by a 2 to 1 margin.

A funny thing happened on the way to the coronation

"For all the hype in republican circles about getting behind the eventual nominee, the MSM seems to be pretty quite about these recent poll results...

"Minnesota looks like a toss up with any of the four candidates having some shot at winning. Santorum holds a small edge there with 29% to 27% for Romney, 22% for Gingrich, and 19% for Paul...


Tuesday has the potential to be a big day for Rick Santorum. In addition ... a Missouri survey we conducted last weekend found him with 45% to 34% for Romney and 13% for Paul. Given how quickly things have moved in this race I wouldn't assume Santorum still has that lead, especially given the momentum Romney has after big wins in Florida and Nevada. But nevertheless it looks like Santorum has a decent chance at wins in Minnesota and Missouri, and a second place finish in Colorado. 72 hours from now he may have supplanted Gingrich as the top alternative to Romney."

I say let this whole thing play out and may they best man win. It will only make for a stronger candidate and I don't think Santorum has even hit his stride yet.

Mittleberg on the Problem of Evil and Suffering

A recent article over at Christianpost.com highlights 7 Points of Light as put together by apologist Mark Mittleberg. Although they are not in any particular order, I will highlight a few of them for discussion here if anyone is interested.

"First point of light: the world is as Jesus predicted
Jesus said, "In this world you will have trouble;" it's good to know that we follow a Savior who really gets it – who sees this fallen world for what it is, and who (contrary to many other religious leaders) tells us the truth about it."

Skeptics often fail to realize that if humans, through their own strivings, could attain a scientific, secular utopia where evil and suffering do not exist, this would provide evidence to disprove the existance of God. Instead, it is just as Jesus said it would be.

"Second point of light: evil was not created or caused by God
The Bible is clear: God is not the author of evil. But he did create us as real human beings with the ability to love and follow him … or not. Unfortunately we chose the "not," and brought sin and evil into the picture.


Third point of light: the cause behind most suffering is human
While it doesn't remove the pain, it can be important to remind people who are tempted to shake their fists at God for the suffering in the world that the vast majority of human pain has been inflicted directly or indirectly by other humans."

Apparently, God did not set out to create robots, but humans. Along with creating humans, He gave us the capacity to utterly accept Him or reject Him. It seems that God is not into coercion and one may accept or reject him based on the existing evidence, general revelation or special revelation. Since we have this capacity for such a wide range of reactions to God and His plan for us, people are capable of many different things ranging from good to evil.

Check out all of the points Mittleberg raises and feel free to leave your thoughts in the comment box below.

(Above image- Ugandan madman dictator, Idi Amin)

Republican Science

Writer David Klinghoffer's latest offering highlights the divide between Republicans and Democrats insofar as how the two groups think scientific theories should be viewed and and the role they should play in our daily lives...

"What's wrong with Republicans, anyway? Scientists and journalists offer a variety of diagnoses. Some say a backwoods element in the population has abandoned the Enlightenment, a result of poor education or religious fundamentalism or both.

Other experts find no convincing sociological explanation and opt for a more scientific (or scientific-seeming) approach, pointing to faulty brain chemistry. A forthcoming book title by journalist Chris Mooney says it all: The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science and Reality...

In coverage of the evolution debate, for example, Darwin defenders have convinced many journalists that only two sides exist: Darwinists themselves versus advocates of a naïve Scriptural view that insists the world is just thousands of years old.

But most Americans understand that a more credible view exists, one that accepts a history of life going back more than 3 billion years but that doubts blind Darwinian forces can account for life's development, seeing, instead, evidence of purpose and design.

There is a persistent sense that we are being manipulated by fellow citizens who use the prestige of the word "science," coupled with the technique of the excluded middle, to intimidate us in service to a political agenda. Not just any political agenda, but one that violates our own experience of who, as human beings, we really are.

At stake is an anthropological view that, on "scientific" grounds, equates humans with animals who climbed too high in their own estimation and need an attitude adjustment. In this picture, government plays the role of zookeeper. We need our modes of transportation and industrial production tightly constrained, our diets controlled, our claim of possessing marks of divine intention or favor firmly denied, our offspring available immediately from conception to be consumed for medical research...

..It's not "science" that we deny but this effort to redefine man in the name of science that we resist."

The entire article is a great read if you have the chance to peruse it in it's entirety.

Meanwhile, over at the DI, their staff has put together a list of 50 peer-reviewed and peer-edited publications supporting the theory of Intelligent Design. Feel free to bookmark that one for the next time you encounter the snarky, internet materialist who tries pushing the fallacy that 'there is no peer-reviewed science' when it comes to Intelligent Design.